Guisto v. Stryker Corp.
2013 WL 2417685
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Guisto received a Stryker Trident Acetabular Hip implant in September 2006 and later required revision.
- Plaintiffs allege implant failure due to a residue adulteration preventing osseointegration, causing persistent pain.
- Defendants had issued a voluntary recall in 2008 and the FDA issued warning letters in 2007 regarding the device.
- Plaintiff sought revision surgery by 2009 and sued the surgeon in a separate malpractice action in 2009.
- Plaintiffs filed their complaint in 2012 alleging four causes of action: negligence, warranties, strict liability, and loss of consortium.
- The court granted summary judgment; ocean of the action barred by statutes of limitations; toxic tort statute deemed inapplicable; warranty claims barred as well.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for negligence/strict liability | Guisto injury from malfunction occurred by May 2009. | Injury traceable to malfunction occurred before cutoff; claims time-barred. | Barred as time-barred under CPLR 214(5). |
| New defect and continuous injury theory | Any later break or new defect would revive timely claims. | No viable new defect claim; untimely or meritless. | Not viable; dismissed on limitations grounds. |
| Warranties—implied and express | Express/implied warranties tolling or longer period may apply. | Implied warranties expired in 2010; express warranty not shown to toll. | Both implied and express warranty claims expired; tolling not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzpatrick v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 99 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984) (three-year trigger for malfunction-based injury in implant cases)
- Martin v. Edwards Labs., Div. of Am. Hosp. Supply Corp., 60 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1983) (injury accrues from malfunction timing, not implantation date)
- Giordano v. Market America, Inc., 15 N.Y.3d 590 (N.Y. 2010) (toxic tort CPLR 214-c scope and latency considerations)
- Schwartz v. Osteonics Corp., 1999 WL 425892 (2d Cir. 1999) (hip replacement claims under CPLR 214-c analysis)
- Gelber v. Stryker Corp., 788 F.Supp.2d 145 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (implied warranties not tolled by future performance)
- Desieno v. Crane Mfg. & Serv. Corp., 127 F. App’x 551 (2d Cir. 2005) (recognizes CPLR 214-c analysis in context of implanted devices)